Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11e3fd6f-1625-4228-8686-a9391df7f261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 9, 7:50 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

Tony is not a Fundamentalist. I believe he is Catholic. Tony and I
(like all IDists) disagree on many things. But like all IDists we
agree----unanimously----that reality and nature clearly reflects
Intelligence and Design.

Too bad you can't show any evidence of that.


Science had always proven these facts.

Then why can't you show any science that "proves" your claims? Can you
provide one single example of science "proving" intelligent design?

In 1859 science did an about
face and said it made a mistake.

Science didn't change in 1859. Creationism was always a religious belief,
not a scientific concept.




I have attacked the position and beliefs of a large group of
persons----the AiG Young Earth Fundamentalist.

You've also attacked those who accept microevolution. Tony has stated he
accepts that fact. Therefore, he should be a 'dumb fundy' in your claims.

These are issues where
truth is at stake: thus I have a moral obligation to speak up as I
please (just like they do).

Why don't you have a moral obligation to acknowledge the truth?

No answer here, Ray?

snip more of what Ray is afraid to answer


If Divine intelligence and power is seen in
reality then the same *is* operating in reality.

That still doesn't explain why God can't use evolution as his means of
creation.


This comment simply denies and ignores the facts explained in the
entire paragraph.

You haven't explained ANY facts in your writing. Your assertions are not
explanations.


Based on this fact

Correction, the above isn't a fact, but an assumption on your part.


Science has always verified nature to reflect Intelligence----only
Atheists deny for obvious reasons.

Where has science "verified nature to reflect Intelligence"? I'm not an
atheist, as Ray is quite aware, and I and many other Christians deny Ray's
claims. Come on, Ray, why not support your claims, for once?




phenomena cannot be described using terms like 'evolution' that say
Divine intelligence and design is not seen in reality or nature.

Evolution does not say that "Divine intelligence and design" is not seen
in
nature.

It is the most basic supposition and claim of evolutionary theory.

No, Ray, it's been explained to you many times why it's not true.
Evolution, like any other scientific theory, says nothing about "divine
intelligence and design". If you choose to believe that nature does show
"divine intelligence and design", you are on your own. Science isn't going
to support, or deny such a belief.


You
are attempting to shield Christian evolutionists from being seen as
fools and buffoons.

There's no need for any such "shield". It's the creationists who are seen
as fools and buffoons. I'm trying to show you where you are wrong.


The word "evolution" means "unrolling", and it's used to describe
the process by which species change over time.


Evolution has many valid meanings:

However as used by scientists, the meanings are very much reduced.
Scientists use the term to mean the process by which species change over
time.

two of them are seen above. Most
importantly, though, evolution is an interpretation of evidence based
on an atheistic assumption that Genesis is false.

No, that's just your own interpretation. You've been shown that your
interpretation is wrong. Genesis is not "presumed" wrong because of
atheism, but because it doesn't match the evidence. If you realize that
Genesis was never meant to be taken as science, the whole idea of Genesis
being "wrong" is pointless.



Evolution indicates that unguided and undirected material forces have
produced nature,

And why can't God use such forces as his means of creation?


This comment is an admission which proves that you were indeed
attempting to shield Christian evolutionists from being seen as fools.

No, the "comment" above is a question, one that you keep avoiding. I'm
not trying to "shield" people who need no shield. Once again, it's
creationists who are seen as fools, not Christians who accept science.


and that these forces are operating in reality and
nature----exclusively.

Again, that's your own assumption. You never have been able to explain
rationally why God can't use such forces.


Your replies in toto construct an attempt to say both (mutually
exclusive) views could be true.

Only you claims that the views are "mutually exclusive". I'm asking you
to defend that claim. Why do you feel they are mutually exclusive?

I have already identified your motive
(You are attempting to shield Christian evolutionists, who accept a
theory that says God is absent from nature, from being seen as fools
and buffoons).

Your attempt to "identify" a "motive" are wrong. My only motive here is to
get you to face the fact that your claim has no basis. Evolution does
NOT say that God is absent from nature. Only you, and some militant
atheists believe that. According to your own claims, that makes you an
atheist, because you believe the same thing they do.



The choice is an either-or, and not conflation.

Why must it be an "either or" choice? You've never been able to explain
this, without running away, or hiding behind sematics.


My entire post offers said explanation----clearly.

No, it only offers more assertions. You are not being clear, which is why
I have to keep asking.

This is why you
have chopped it up into pieces, creating straw men and "answering"
quote mines.

Ray, you know that I am simply addressing each or your points. I haven't
created any "straw men", and I haven't omitted any of your words. Whining
about my posting style isn't going to make your claims any more reasonable,
or your attempts to run away any less cowardly.




That is, EITHER Divine power-causation is operating in reality-nature
OR unguided and undirected material forces of evolution are operating
in reality: conflation is not an option.

Why not? Just because you are too blind to see it as an option?

Persons who advocate the
former cannot use terms to describe reality that belong to and
advocate the latter and vice-versa.

Why not? Who made the rule that they can't?


These questions were clearly answered.

No, they were not. You haven't "clearly" answered any of my questions.
You have run away from them.

Evasion of argument. We all know why.

I suspect your evasion of the argument is because you are too cowardly to
address the argument.



If Intelligence and design is seen
in reality-nature then those who recognize cannot describe said
phenomena with terms that deny the scientific validity of said
position, like 'microEVOLUTION.'

Evolution doesn't "deny the scientific validity" of something that never
had
any scientific validity. "Intelligence and design" are inferences one can
make, but have no actual scientific support. Ray, when you try to define
"evolution" to mean "something that can't ever be used by God", you need
to
show some reasoning behind that definition. Otherwise you are just making
up your own words.


Evolution means God is not involved with nature:

Not to anyone who actually knows what the term means.

that Creationism (God
involved with nature) is false.

Ray, you are quite aware that creationism is not just "God involved in
nature". If that were the case, you would have no trouble with theistic
evolution. Evolution itself does not claim that God is not involved in
nature. It only explains the evidence by means of naturally occuring
processes. Like any science, evolution doesn't take a stand on whether or
not God was invovled.

Your comments show basic ignorance of
evolution as it has been understood since 1859 or brazen
misrepresentation. Denying these 101 facts prove you to be ignorant or
a liar.

Actually, my denial of your misunderstanding only shows that you are the
ignorant one. You are wrong about "science since 1859", which isn't any
different from science before 1859. Scientists did not start using
methodological naturalism in 1859, nor did Darwin produce a change in the
way science looks at nature.

Scientists, both before and after Darwin have held religious beliefs
which they knew were not scientific. Many scientists today believe that
nature reflects God's presence, even though they know science, as a means of
investigation doesn't support those beliefs. Belief is a matter of faith,
not scientific evidence.


But, like I said: your motive to shield Christian evolutionists from
being seen as fools for accepting a theory that says their alleged God
is not seen in nature explains your replies perfectly.

Your assumptions about my "motives" are just as wrong as your assumptions
about anything else. I hardly need to shield people who aren't in need of
a shield. Evolution does not say that God is not seen in nature. That's
been your own mistake all along.

To be clear: Science doesn't say that God is involved in nature, and it
doesn't say that God is NOT involved in nature. It cannot make any such
statement, as there isn't any way for science to detect the presence of God.
Belief is a matter of faith, not science.



Since 1859, 'evolution' or
'microevolution' are terms inextricably linked to the view of reality
and nature that says Divine intelligence and power is not seen in
reality-nature.

Once again, Ray, this is just your own mistaken belief. Christians,
before and after 1859 have believed that nature demonstrates God's power,
and intelligence. Science, however has not been able to support such a
belief. Likewise it can't possibly deny such a belief. If you choose to
believe that God's power is seen in nature, one must recognize that
science
isn't going to support you either way.


Subjective conflationism.

Which means what? Your own claim that it can't be "conflated" is entirely
subjective, and without support.

Motive already explained.

Your "explanation" of my "motive" is entirely wrong. You've just made
another false assumption, and refuse to admit you might be wrong.

Without said
motive Dana's beliefs make no sense, and are severely contradictory.

Ray, my beliefs do not have the "motive" you claimed, and I don't see that
they don't make sense, or are contradictory. You are unable to show any
contradiction, and you are hardly one to accuse others of "not making
sense".



If God-Intelligence is INvolved with reality-nature
then persons who advocate are advocating Creationism-ID or British
Natural Theology.

Then you seem to be accepting that theistic evolution is the same as
"British Natural Theology", or "Creationism-ID". You can do, that, if you
wish, but it doesn't change the science of evolution. Also, it doesn't
make Creatonism science.


I spent my whole message explaining why the word "evolution" cannot be
used by persons who accept reality to reflect Intelligence.

Ray, the only "explanation" you offered was "I said they can't". You
haven't offered any rational support for such a position. When I've asked
you to support your claim, you've engaged in name calling and ran away.

You've made the bald claim that "evolution" means "without God", but have
ignored the fact that the word doesn't mean that. You've ignored that many
Christians have held belief in God, and accepted the science of evolution.
You've ignored that science doesn't make claims about the supernatural.
Over all, you've ignored all evidence to the contrary of your assertions.


Yet Dana
deliberately ignores, and misrepresents with a string of non-
sequiturs. Why?

As you are quite aware, I've not "ignored" or "misrepresented" any of your
statements. As for "non sequitur" that is another word you seem not to
understand what it means. Everything I've presented followed from the
arguments I've been making.


Because he cannot address or refute what was actually said.

Ray, I HAVE addressed and refuted what you said. This is shown by the fact
you keep running away from my points.






If God-Intelligence is not involved in reality or
nature then, since 1859, this is called Evolution or Darwinism.

Actually, as I've pointed out many times, the belief that God is involved
in
nature is compatable with an acceptance of evolutionary theory ,and
Darwin's
particular mechanism.


Extreme ignorance or same old misrepresentation explained by motive.

As you know, it's neither. Your "explanation" of a "motive" you just made
up is worthless and pointless. Why not address my real 'motive', i.e. to
get you to look at the contradictions in your own position? Belief in
God and acceptance of science is not mutually exclusive. You've asserted
that it is, but you have never been able to show why.


IF species change (and in this context I am not saying they do or they
don't) but if they do, and if you are a person who accepts Creationism
or ID, then you need to find a different term to describe said change
because, like I said, any word with 'evolution' in it is indicating
that Divine power and intelligence is absent from reality and
nature----entirely.

But you don't get to re-define words to mean what you want.

More misrepresentation of basic 101 facts explained by said motive.

Once again, I have not misrepresented you. I've pointed out that you don't
get to change the meaning of a word, just because you don't like the
meaning. Evolution, as used by scientists, means change in allele
frequency in a population of organisms over generations. You don't get to
change the meaning to "God isn't involved in nature".



The word
"evolution" neither supports, or denies the religious belief that God is
involved in nature. It's your own false assumption that the word
"evolution" leaves out any role for God.


Extreme ignorance or brazen misrepresentation.

Again, neither, as you well know. Can you show me ANY scientist who
claims that the word "evolution" leaves out any role for God?


Since 1859 "evolution" means God is not involved or seen in nature.
Science, based on Darwinism, did an about-face.

Which shows your own "extreme ignorance". Science did not do an 'about
face' in 1859. Darwin's theory is based on the same science that always
was in effect. Evolution, before or after 1859 says nothing about whether
God is, or is not involved in nature. "Darwinism" is a position about the
particular mechanism of evolutionary change, and isn't something that
science would base a change on.


It is impossible for any mildly educated person not to know this.

Only if your unilateral re-definition of the term were accepted by any
"mildly educated' person. The fact is, you don't get to re-define the
term. Just because you have a basic misunderstanding of how science works,
it doesn't mean that everyone accepts your claims.

Dana's comments are a brazen misrepresentation of undisputed history
explained by said motive.

How can it be my "brazen misrepresentation" when you are wrong? How can
it be "undisputed history" when your version of history is not accepted by
anyone else?


But all of Dana's replies with this now said show why evolutionists
are known as brazen liars.

"Evolutionists" aren't known as brazen liars. Creationists are. Ray in
particular is known as a liar in this group.

If they would attempt to deny and
misrepresent these basic facts of the two major views then just think
what evolutionists have done with complicated scientific evidence?

Once again, Ray, your own ignorance and attempts to redefine words doesn't
make genuine scientists any less respectable, and your own inablity to
understand science does not mean scientists don't treat scientific evidence
with respect.





Ray

SNIP more of Dana's one pony show....

Ray runs away some more..


DJT






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >>> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >>Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ... >>breathed life into. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... tell science when some line of research was pointless, ... phenomenon" of evolution from lower to higher ordered life. ... the evolution of a new organ or system over a human lifetime. ... Richard Dawkins's views on God and theism are not evolutionary theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... >"Life from life, with modifications" describes the Theory of Evolution. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
    ... Like 'creation science' .. ... Nature does not exist on its own. ... Why should I think that because it is outside of my knowledge it must be a god? ... There are a long list of the unexplained given a supernatural/god explanation, ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: The poor little God of creationism
    ... rat, tinkering with nature. ... Why couldn't an Omnipotent God have designed things? ... There is only one theory supported by science. ... believe that mimicry is a perfect example of how evolution works: ...
    (talk.origins)